American Leader

[Ilspana]

I'm actually pro-democrat, but i can honestly say that Clinton has about as much to do with the economic growth as Dan Quayle. The man who is resposible for much of what goes on in our economy is Allen Greenspan, who is in charge of interest rates. He has argueably more power than even the president, at least as far as the economy is concerned.

As far as Clinton is concerned, the booming economy was a happy coincidence to make his presidency seem brighter than it actually was. Personally i think the guy is an interesting personality, and he definitely has charisma, but I have to admit that he had very little to do with the economic growth.

 

[Robespierre]

As a Libertarian, I'm inclined to believe that the South had the right to secede.

You're a Libertarian??? Me too. I even have a party membership that expires come 2002.

Anyway, the states DID have the right to secede, I remember learning about it when we studied the US Constitution in class, NO, the constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land (unfortunately), because the constitution is only as powerful as people want it to be and lately it's become obsolete in the new "American Vision" of Federal Bureaucracy and Centralized Authority.

But yes, Lincoln did have a big impact on the world, and like I said I think he is good to represent both the positive and negative aspects of America. So I think he is a good choice for leader for the Americans in Civ3, though not because he was the greatest president.

 

[Static]

Originally posted by Robespierre

Anyway, the states DID have the right to secede, I remember learning about it when we studied the US Constitution in class, NO, the constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land (unfortunately), because the constitution is only as powerful as people want it to be and lately it's become obsolete in the new "American Vision" of Federal Bureaucracy and Centralized Authority.

Well said, I totally agree.

 

[amadeus]

"Clinton made an effort to turn the Internet into a 'Information Highway' with his 'Gateway to the 21st century' policies"...

Yeah, a gateway to a 25% federal sales tax.

I'd like to see how Clinton or Gore would handle the Soviet Union instead of Ronald Reagan. Heck, we'd all probably be speaking Russian right now, ha-ha.

 

[Robespierre]

The economy is something hard to control that often fluctuates regardless of government policies - the only real nations where government policies determine the economy are communist ones, and the economic range there is from "awful" to "pretty bad".

Clinton just happened to come along at a happy time when his high taxing policy didn't do too much to hurt America and he could claim credit for an economic boom. No single man, not even Greenspan, is even remotely responsible for the success/failure of the American economy. The economy is determined by businesses, employers, and consumers, not by the government.

 

[Static]

Originally posted by Robespierre
The economy is something hard to control that often fluctuates regardless of government policies - the only real nations where government policies determine the economy are communist ones, and the economic range there is from "awful" to "pretty bad".

Clinton just happened to come along at a happy time when his high taxing policy didn't do too much to hurt America and he could claim credit for an economic boom. No single man, not even Greenspan, is even remotely responsible for the success/failure of the American economy. The economy is determined by businesses, employers, and consumers, not by the government.

Yes and No.

Yes, the economic boom was fueled by businesses, employers, and consumers, but government policies (especially in a global economy) have an influence also. For example, President Hoover's doubling of the income tax helped turn our depressed economy in 1929 into the Great Depression. Bush's failed domestic policy(Read my lips..., NO new taxes), sent us into a reccession. Unfortunatly, presidents do have an influence on our economy, whether its good or bad depends on his policies.

Lets remember, Clinton didn't "come along at a happy time", he entered office during our worst reccession in decades.

 

[Sukenis]

Now that the discussion has gone from who the pres in Civ 3 should be to economics, I will once again join in.

May I ask those who say Clinton had anything major to do with the economy, "Have you EVER studied ecomonics?"

Presidential fiscal policy takes at least 6 years to effect the nationwide economy (except for rare exceptions). This means that the boom that took places during the Clinton time was brought about (if talking fiscal policy) by what happened at least 6 years before it started. Given that (basic) fical fact, how can you say what you are saying?

The main effect a president has on the economy is the confidence the consumber has in the economy. Clinton did a good job of keeping up that confidence (while now Bush is not becasue he is being honest).

Greenspan has nothing to do with a booming economy (in theory at least). His job is to control inflation (once again in theory) and that is why he does what he does. Do none of you (Greenspan followers) remember the fears taht many politicans had about Greenspan vasting raisign the interest rate during the booming economy? He was fearful of inflation (mainly do to the unreasonable tech stocks and stock expectations) and almost started this. He did not have to because of the market correction (that is causeing the problems now) that took place.

If you people want to discuss economics, please know what you are talking about. Most everything you are saying is coming out your bums. Also if youw ant to talk economics, start a thread about it and do not crash a "who is the best politican" thread.

 

[Static]

Originally posted by Sukenis
Now that the discussion has gone from who the pres in Civ 3 should be to economics, I will once again join in.

May I ask those who say Clinton had anything major to do with the economy, "Have you EVER studied ecomonics?"

Presidential fiscal policy takes at least 6 years to effect the nationwide economy (except for rare exceptions). This means that the boom that took places during the Clinton time was brought about (if talking fiscal policy) by what happened at least 6 years before it started. Given that (basic) fical fact, how can you say what you are saying?

The main effect a president has on the economy is the confidence the consumber has in the economy. Clinton did a good job of keeping up that confidence (while now Bush is not becasue he is being honest).

Greenspan has nothing to do with a booming economy (in theory at least). His job is to control inflation (once again in theory) and that is why he does what he does. Do none of you (Greenspan followers) remember the fears taht many politicans had about Greenspan vasting raisign the interest rate during the booming economy? He was fearful of inflation (mainly do to the unreasonable tech stocks and stock expectations) and almost started this. He did not have to because of the market correction (that is causeing the problems now) that took place.

If you people want to discuss economics, please know what you are talking about. Most everything you are saying is coming out your bums. Also if youw ant to talk economics, start a thread about it and do not crash a "who is the best politican" thread.

I think everyone has made good points, but I think the debate has turned into a bash the president with 'different politcal views from your own' thread. Saying Reagan, Lincoln, FDR, Clinton or whomever..., had nothing to do with what happened to the country during their presidency is ridiculous.

Lincoln is a good choice for leader because of the way he exercised leadership during the Civil War and because of the impact of that leadership on the moral and political character of the nation. He wasn't a racist or political opportunist.

FDR was not a 'socialist' or political opportunist either, he lead the country out of the Great Depression, and did a great job in WW2.

The reason Reagan would not be better than Lincoln(one of the original questions in the first post), is because while he was a likeable guy who did well in foriegn matters, his domestic policy was very divisive to the public, and IMHO not very sound. He was a good president though, and would be good in a Cold War scenario.

Lastly the only reason Clinton was brought up was because someone said he had NOTHING to do with the economy while he was in office(I don't like the guy personally). I do know about economics and "Presidential fiscal policy takes at least 6 years to effect the nationwide economy" is just a theory which doesn't match what happened in history. My guess then is that you believe Reagan caused the boom in the 90's even though we went into a reccession during the Bush's term. But wouldn't that mean Reagan had a hand in the reccesion and economic boom (6 years before both events, Reagan was in office), by the way I personally don't think he was responsible for either of them. Once again, the people of the country have the vast majority of effect on the economy, But that doesn't mean the President has NO influence.

I wish people would stop re-writing history, and just look at our former presidents, for what they were GOOD and BAD. I hope we don't get more Civ leader threads like this one, then we'll have to see comments like "Napolean did nothing", or "Ghandi was a poilitical opportunist".

 

[Robespierre]

Well, I'm no economist, so I won't argue anymore there, but who was it that said Clinton "tried to build the internet into the information superhighway" or somethingl like that?

I mean, Jesus Christ man, do you believe everything you read in propaganda pamphlets?

Yeah, I've also heard the Democrats claim that they had something to do with the boom of the internet. But that's nothing more than a political party randomly choosing some element of American society that happens to be on the rise nowadays, and then vaguely asserting that this is definitely because of their efforts. They might as well have claimed responsibility for the pokemon craze.

 

[stravaig]

Originally posted by Static


I wish people would stop re-writing history, and just look at our former presidents, ...

Static -
When you argue that the US is a Democracy (or any form thereof) you are doing exactly what you apparently wish others would not.
You are not arguing with /me/ whether or not the US is a Democracy, you are arguing with the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution who, in their own words, emphatically stated that the US is a Republic.

Roby -
The Constitution may not currently be regarded as the supreme law of the land, but it damn well ought to be, since that's the way it was designed. 'Tis unfortunate, I agree.
What's a Libertarian doing in Warsaw?

BTW, I think one of the best arguments for Ronald Reagan as the US leader is that he'd look funnier than Abe in the different garb from different eras. If Montezuma looks cool in a suit, how would Ronnie look in hides?

- Stravaig

 

[Static]

Originally posted by stravaig


Static -
When you argue that the US is a Democracy (or any form thereof) you are doing exactly what you apparently wish others would not.
You are not arguing with /me/ whether or not the US is a Democracy, you are arguing with the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution who, in their own words, emphatically stated that the US is a Republic.

Actually, I think we both agree, in a way. The Founding Fathers did intend for the US to be a Republic, but the US ended up becoming in practice a Repesentative Democracy (sometimes things don't turn out as originally intended). We basically agree, my point just is that America never became what the Founders designed.

Whether that is a good thing or not is another question.

 

[stravaig]

Static -

Interesting thoughts. There are many things that have been warped from their original concept and intent over the years.

Indeed, US Senators were originally appointed by the State Governors rather than elected by the state populace (the House was always supposed to represent the people). Yet another way in which we've become increasingly 'democratized.'

I would of course argue that the democratization of the country (and I can't deny that it's happening) is a bad thing. I therefore shan't give in.
Popular misconceptions, no matter how pervasive, do not change the facts. The emperor is, in fact, naked, and the US is, in fact, a Republic.

Mayhaps the Constitution will be ignored and trampled upon long enough, and mayhaps the people will become so unutterably ignorant of our history that democratization of the US becomes inevitable and irreversible, but I will fight to the last.

- Stravaig

 

[Robespierre]

Yeah, the rise of "mob rule", commonly referred to as democracy, in the USA has done nothing but led to bureaucratization and irrational responses to every national crisis (take a look at what's going on today with people being arrested for "insulting" the government and muslims being detained for carrying religious relics).

What the people want isn't always what's good, you have to try to filter the system so that some values, like freedom and tolerance, rise above the tide of popular ignorance. People by themselves don't tend to be tolerant, nor do they tend to fight to preserve their own freedom. If you just let everything be decided upon by mass consensus, powerful emotions like hatred and fear will undoubtedly rise above complex abstract ideas like liberty and justice. Remember that Hitler was elected.

The opposite of pure democracy, however, the authoritarian oligarchy, is just as bad (power corrupts even the most virtuous statesmen).

 

[Static]

I'm kinda glad we became a Democracy. But you must remember that we're a Representative and not a Pure Democracy. A pure one would chaotic, especially with the hysteria the News Media creates on a daily basis, too many knee-jerk reactions without considering how it would effect our freedoms and rights(Like now, the public is in favor of National ID's, IMHO a bad idea). In concept our Representatives 'should' carry out the peoples wishes, while making sure it doesn't conflict with the Constitution(although, in MANY cases they don't). The theory is that this kind of government would protect America from becoming government oppressive state. If people voted and got involved in their local politics, politicians would be accountable and alot more things would get done, but it doesn't seem people care.

 

[amadeus]

I agree, a pure democracy would be chaotic, but, only on the highest levels of governing. Small New England "hamlets" (if you will) could easily hold town hall meetings for people to voice their concerns, but a city like Minneapolis (Minnesota Pride ) or Duluth, everyone trying to attend a meeting like that would easily fill up a stadium or a concert hall...

That wouldn't be good.

 

[Ironrod]

Originally posted by Static


The reason Reagan would not be better than Lincoln(one of the original questions in the first post), is because while he was a likeable guy who did well in foriegn matters, his domestic policy was very divisive to the public, and IMHO not very sound. He was a good president though, and would be good in a Cold War scenario.

"He was a likeable guy" pretty much sums up Reagan's value. Who here remembers Iran-Contra? That fiasco was a blatant defiance of US law, much more serious than Watergate or Zippergate. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment over his scandal, and Clinton was impeached. Yet Iran-Contra simply bounced off Reagan, "the Teflon president", and Ollie North was regarded as a hero. Go figure.

Reagan's sole claim to greatness lies in rekindling patriotism. After Jimmy Carter wringing his hands in the Rose Garden over the Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan's heartfelt posturing -- his whole "Morning in America" schtick -- actually succeeded in restoring American confidence and bolstering our reputation in the eyes of the world. He was a masterful actor in this role, because he really lived the part and believed his ideals.

In terms of policy, I am not willing to concede anything to Reagan himself. He was a figurehead and probably already in the early stages of Alzheimers; real governing was done by his cabinet. I am dismayed that Americans consider him a great leader (beyond his acknowledged value as an icon), and I would be insulted, as an American, to see his visage portrayed in Civ3.

Fortunately, it isn't, making this whole debate moot!

 

[jp]

America represents THE modern-day civ in the game, so therefore probably the best choice for leader would be a modern-day leader. Someone like Reagan represents the world-power America, engaging in wars around the world for commercial reasons and for maintaining its claim as the most powerful nation in the world (read Cold War). The game mainly intended for the US, however, Lincoln was chosen as the good person who freed the slaves and preserved the Union. And for his over-familiar face.

 

[Robespierre]

Lincoln "freed the slaves" because he was forced to through political expediency (it was basically a dilemma - free the slaves or lose the civil war, so Lincoln chose what he thought was the lesser of two evils). And he "preserved the Union" (for what?) with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

If the Union hadn't been "preserved", then the Northerners could have elected Al Gore, and would have been happy, and the Southerners could have elected George Bush, and would have been happy. And Slavery wouldn't have survived far into the twentieth century anyway, even in the south - it was an outdated institution, and the Southern leaders couldn't keep the industrial revolution out of their nation forever. And the prize for a peaceful solution of the 1860s crisis would have been the preservation of democratic values, instead of their discardment in favor of a powerful and coercive government.

 

[Zachriel]

Not only did Lincoln secure the Republic, but his influence was global.

The King of faraway Siam not only heard of Lincoln, but offered him elephants for his fight to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation is the most important political document of the 19th century.

Tolstoy relates this story:

Traveling in a wild region of the Caucasus, the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy was befriended by a devout Circassian chief who wanted to hear about the world outside his mountains. After Tolstoy went on at length about the powerful leaders of Europe, the chief insisted: "But you have not told us about the greatest general and ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder, he laughed like the sunrise, his deeds were strong as the rock and sweet as the fragrance of roses.

"He was so great that he even forgave the crimes of his greatest enemies and shook brotherly hands with those who had plotted against his life. His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America. Tell us of that man."

 

[Robespierre]

Well damn, I guess you really proved the point. If some Asian tyrants complemented Abraham Lincoln, then he must have been great.

I'm not trying to say Lincoln's influence was small - on the contrary. I'm just saying maybe it wasn't all positive the way all the American textbooks want you to think.

And don't say things like "the Emancipation Proclamation was THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY." First of all, nothing that happened in America in the nineteenth century was probably as important as the things that happened in Europe, because in the nineteenth century America was still a second-rate power and didn't have any global influence like the nations of Europe did.